Navy crew remembers 1967 Israeli attack

ojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote in message
From: (Issac Goldberg)

Members of the Armed Forces are trained to follow
orders without question. And if the orders originated
directly from the President of the United States,
there would be few in the service, if any, who would
not obey those orders, even if they were clearly illegal.

Can't think of a better example of your low opinion of members of the armed
forces, especially high ranking senior officers, then the above.

Is that the best you can do? Perhaps, like Bush, you
don't read newspapers, but apparently there have been
several members of the armed forces who willingly
tortured prisoners in Iraq, allegedly following the
orders of their superiors. Interestingly, U.S.
government lawyers in the Justice department and the
Pentagon were writing memos which tried to justify
the use of torture, including the gem that a
wartime President can break any laws he wants.
We have not been told who directed the lawyers
to write those memos, but it is fairly safe to
assume that they didn't just decide on their own
volition to write a memo to try to justify torture.
That is, it probably came from high ranking
senior officers.

It should also be pointed out that the U.S. invasion
of Iraq, in an unprovoked pre-emptive attack, was a
fundamental violation of the United Nations treaty
which was ratified by a 2/3 vote of the U.S.
Senate in 1945. According to the U.S. Constitution,
ratified treaties become the law of the land, and
cannot be violated at the whim of whoever is
President at the time. Bush the elder did get the
authorization from the U.N. Security Council for
the first Gulf War, Bush the younger was unable
to get Security Council authorization, so he
just ignored the U.N. and clearly violated
international law.

The U.N. was established with the goal of stopping
things like Mussolini's pre-emptive invasion of
Ethiopia and Japan's pre-emptive attack on Manchuria.

And speaking of high ranking senior officers, in
Operation Northwoods, the Joint Chiefs of Staff
drew up plans to create a pretext to invade Cuba.
Some of the not-very-legal suggestions made by the
Joint Chiefs of Staff we

1. Shooting down an airliner containing Americans
and blaming it on Castro,

2. Sinking a Navy ship in Guantanamo harbor and
blaming it on Castro, ["printing the casualty lists
in the newspapers would be especially effective," the
Northwood proposal said,] and

3. Shooting down John Glenn's space capsule and, you
guessed it, blaming it on Castro.

In all three instances, the Joint Chief of Staff
proposed murdering American citizens in 'false flag'
operation.

Fortunately President Kennedy rejected the plan. Score
one for the rule of law. Johnson would have probably
given the plan his OK. That is the kind of person
Johnson was, at least according to award winning
biographer Robert Caro, who provides keen insight
into what an unethical person Johnson was.

wrote in message . com...
(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
How it is a lie when the Court's findings were altered
after they were submitted by Kidd to his superiors?

And Kidd never found that out...
And no copies are kept in different places...
And nobody realizes that his testimony was altered...

If Boston knew that the records were altered then is was
is right, and duty, to tell Kidd and the JAG. Telling his
story only after Kidd was dead, is a little strange.

I see no possiblity that Boston is lying and think you defenders of
Israel show your "I'll do anything for Israel" stripes when you accuse
him of doing so. Kidd could easily have been venting when he said
what Boston said he said. And it's probable that testimony was taken
out of the NCOI report because it was judged inflamatory or of
questionable veracity by whoever in the DOD that conducted the final
review.

It's Cristol and other "Israel right or wrong" types who encourage the
attack speculation by denying that the court wanted to go to Israel
and accuse people like Lt Painter of being a liar for saying his
testimony was removed from the NCOI report.

Still would like to know why Cristol did not ask McNamara why the
court was not allowed to go to Israel and if Rabin and Hod were told
of the spy ship Liberty on the morning of 8 June.

-Steve

(Steve Richter) wrote in message . com...
wrote in message . com...
(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
How it is a lie when the Court's findings were altered
after they were submitted by Kidd to his superiors?

And Kidd never found that out...
And no copies are kept in different places...
And nobody realizes that his testimony was altered...

If Boston knew that the records were altered then is was
is right, and duty, to tell Kidd and the JAG. Telling his
story only after Kidd was dead, is a little strange.

I see no possiblity that Boston is lying

If Boston is not lying then it is his *duty* to notify Congress and/or
Navy brass and/or JAG that the "records were altered." Obstruction of
Justice is a very serious matter.

And it's probable that testimony was taken
out of the NCOI report because it was judged inflamatory or of
questionable veracity by whoever in the DOD that conducted the final
review.

Only the court has the right to alter the court records.
All the DoD can do is to stamp a big "Top Secret" on the inflamatory
parts.

ojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
From: (Issac Goldberg):

Members of the Armed Forces are trained to follow
orders without question. And if the orders originated
directly from the President of the United States,
there would be few in the service, if any, who would
not obey those orders, even if they were clearly illegal.
Can't think of a better example of your low opinion of members of the armed
forces, especially high ranking senior officers, then the above.
Is that the best you can do? ...
It fits to a tee the prior characteristic of your inability for logical
thought...

Once again, Weeks shows the weakness of his arguments by his
need to insult people who disagree with his views. If Weeks
had a strong case there would be no need for him to continually
use insults and name calling, because his arguments would stand
on their own. Hence, the constant need to resort to underhanded
techniques. How typical.

''I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and
that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I
am about to enter. So help me God."

Nice oath. How about this one:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
execute the office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This is the oath that President Johnson took. The
U.S. Constitution contains Article VI, which contains
the provision that "… all treaties made, or which shall
be made, under the authority of the United States,
shall be the supreme law of the land …"

The United Nations treaty was ratified by the US Senate
in 1945, therefore, became its provisions were now the
supreme law of the land. To prevent countries from
launching pre-emptive attacks on other nations, all
signatory U.N. members agreed to submit any dispute
which threatened the peace to the U.N. Security Council.
Johnson did not submit the Vietnam dispute to the
Security Council before he sent U.S. ground troops there.
Therefore Johnson violated his oath of office. Any
President who is willing to violate his oath of office
would have no hesitation about who recently iniative
qualms about destroying a subordinate who defied him.

The reason Kidd and Boston followed Johnson's illegal
orders to them to violate their oath was:

1) Fighting Johnson would be futile,

2) Fighting Johnson would have resulted in their
removal from the Liberty inquiry and their replacement
with more cooperative people,

3) Fighting Johnson would have resulted in the end of
their Navy careers, and they would face the same fate
as any individual who would try to stand up to a President.
This means either that they would have spent the rest of
their life in jail or in a mental institution.

Not very attractive, is it? By cooperating with
Johnson's illegal orders they were able to retain
their Navy jobs. And maybe some day, after Johnson
was gone, they would be able to go public and tell
the truth of what happened.

************************************************** ****

By the way, Weeks, when are you going to tell us
about all of the 'arrogant jet jocks' that you had to
deal with?

wrote in message om...
How it is a lie when the Court's findings were altered
after they were submitted by Kidd to his superiors?

And Kidd never found that out...
And no copies are kept in different places...
And nobody realizes that his testimony was altered...

If Boston knew that the records were altered then is was
is right, and duty, to tell Kidd and the JAG. Telling his
story only after Kidd was dead, is a little strange.

I see no possiblity that Boston is lying

If Boston is not lying then it is his *duty* to notify Congress and/or
Navy brass and/or JAG that the "records were altered." Obstruction of
Justice is a very serious matter.

It is the duty of American Jews to join the US Military in numbers
equivalent to their percentage of the population. That would surely
insure the highest degree of professionalism in the ranks. g

Who empaneled the court of inquiry? My guess is that that entity is
the one that sets the boundaries of the courts inquiry and reviews its
findings. The court for example had no legal standing to hear
testimony pertaining to LBJ's conduct of the Vietnam war. By the same
token, the entity that created the court could tell it that it could
not call any members of the IDF as witnesses.

And it's probable that testimony was taken
out of the NCOI report because it was judged inflamatory or of
questionable veracity by whoever in the DOD that conducted the final
review.

Only the court has the right to alter the court records.
All the DoD can do is to stamp a big "Top Secret" on the inflamatory
parts.

How do you know that? If the DOD is the entity that empaneled the
court, it is probably the entity that rules on the courts scope of
inquiry. Striking testimony from the record is probably legally
allowed. My guess is that only falsifying testimony or other evidence
would be illegal.

The bottom line is that Boston is not a liar. When he says the court
wanted to go to Israel to gather evidence but was not allowed by Adm
McCain and others, that is surely what happened. When he says the
testimony of Lt Painter the MGing of the life rafts was excised,
that is without a doubt true also.

So as we see, not only has there never been a congressional
investigation of the attack on the Liberty. There has never been a
complete NCOI investigation either.

-Steve

If Boston is not lying then it is his *duty* to notify Congress and/or
Navy brass and/or JAG that the "records were altered." Obstruction of
Justice is a very serious matter.

(Steve Richter) wrote in message . com...
It is the duty of American Jews to join the US Military in numbers
equivalent to their percentage of the population. That would surely
insure the highest degree of professionalism in the ranks. g

Can somebody please explain what Steve's answer has to
do with my question?

Who empaneled the court of inquiry? My guess is that that entity is
the one that sets the boundaries of the courts inquiry and reviews its
findings. The court for example had no legal standing to hear
testimony pertaining to LBJ's conduct of the Vietnam war. By the same
token, the entity that created the court could tell it that it could
not call any members of the IDF as witnesses.

The IDF members gave testimony to the US naval attache in Israel.
If the court thought that this testimony was not good enough then it
could say just that in its conclusions. It was up to the court, not
you or me, to evaluate this issue. If Boston had any beef then it
was his duty to raise that ASAP in 1967.

Only the court has the right to alter the court records.
All the DoD can do is to stamp a big "Top Secret" on the inflamatory
parts.

How do you know that?

Check sometime UCMJ.
@(h) Each court of inquiry shall keep a record of its proceedings,
@which shall be authenticated by the signatures of the president
@and counsel for the court and forwarded to the convening authority.

If Kidd signed the record, and somebody changed it later, then he
should have removed Kidd's signature because Kidd did not approve
the changes. Doing anything else is Obstruction of Justice.

Anyway, I have never heard that an external entity has the right to
change signed records while keeping the original signature. Can you
give any example where that is legal?

wrote in message . com...
If Boston is not lying then it is his *duty* to notify Congress and/or
Navy brass and/or JAG that the "records were altered." Obstruction of
Justice is a very serious matter.

(Steve Richter) wrote in message . com...
It is the duty of American Jews to join the US Military in numbers
equivalent to their percentage of the population. That would surely
insure the highest degree of professionalism in the ranks. g

Can somebody please explain what Steve's answer has to
do with my question?

Just an observation of mine. You and other defenders of Israel make
very unfair and upsetting allegations against the Navy personnel
involved in this affair who speak contrary to the interests of Israel.
Very similar to how the OJ Simpson lawyers defamed the LAPD
detectives to get their murderer client found not guilty in his trial.

Who empaneled the court of inquiry? My guess is that that entity is
the one that sets the boundaries of the courts inquiry and reviews its
findings. The court for example had no legal standing to hear
testimony pertaining to LBJ's conduct of the Vietnam war. By the same
token, the entity that created the court could tell it that it could
not call any members of the IDF as witnesses.

The IDF members gave testimony to the US naval attache in Israel.
If the court thought that this testimony was not good enough then it
could say just that in its conclusions. It was up to the court, not
you or me, to evaluate this issue. If Boston had any beef then it
was his duty to raise that ASAP in 1967.

You dont appear to be making sense. What IDF testimony was given to
the US naval attache in Israel? Your saying it was given at the time
of the NCOI and made available to the court? Did the attache ask if
IAF CDR Hod and IDF COS Rabin were told that an American spy ship was
operating off the coast of the Sinai on the morning of 8 June?

Only the court has the right to alter the court records.
All the DoD can do is to stamp a big "Top Secret" on the inflamatory
parts.

How do you know that?

Check sometime UCMJ.
@(h) Each court of inquiry shall keep a record of its proceedings,
@which shall be authenticated by the signatures of the president
@and counsel for the court and forwarded to the convening authority.

If Kidd signed the record, and somebody changed it later, then he
should have removed Kidd's signature because Kidd did not approve
the changes. Doing anything else is Obstruction of Justice.

Anyway, I have never heard that an external entity has the right to
change signed records while keeping the original signature. Can you
give any example where that is legal?

Your not reading very well. From Boston's sworn statement:

"...Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that
he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the
White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the
court's findings. ..."

If the court itself rewrites its findings, there is no illegality.
Its not illegal or improper for Boston and Kidd to do this. They were
simply adhering to the guidlines and corrections of those who
empaneled the court. What is does mean is that the court did not
conduct an impartial and full inquiry. Why does Israel not want the
truth to be told in this matter?

-Steve

It is the duty of American Jews to join the US Military in numbers
equivalent to their percentage of the population. That would surely
insure the highest degree of professionalism in the ranks. g

Can somebody please explain what Steve's answer has to
do with my question?

(Steve Richter) wrote in message . com...
Just an observation of mine. You and other defenders of Israel make
very unfair and upsetting allegations against the Navy personnel
involved in this affair who speak contrary to the interests of Israel.

Boston claimed that there was Obstruction of Justice.
It is his duty to report that to the US government,
not just to the press. Do you disagree with that?

The IDF members gave testimony to the US naval attache in Israel.
If the court thought that this testimony was not good enough then it
could say just that in its conclusions. It was up to the court, not
you or me, to evaluate this issue. If Boston had any beef then it
was his duty to raise that ASAP in 1967.

You dont appear to be making sense. What IDF testimony was given to
the US naval attache in Israel?

Have you read the documents in http://libertyincident.com/USNcourt.htm?
Yes or No? It is not my job to spoon-feed you. Sorry.

Only the court has the right to alter the court records.
All the DoD can do is to stamp a big "Top Secret" on the inflamatory
parts.

How do you know that?

Check sometime UCMJ.
@(h) Each court of inquiry shall keep a record of its proceedings,
@which shall be authenticated by the signatures of the president
@and counsel for the court and forwarded to the convening authority.

If Kidd signed the record, and somebody changed it later, then he
should have removed Kidd's signature because Kidd did not approve
the changes. Doing anything else is Obstruction of Justice.

Anyway, I have never heard that an external entity has the right to
change signed records while keeping the original signature. Can you
give any example where that is legal?

Your not reading very well.

You said:
%And it's probable that testimony was taken
%out of the NCOI report because it was judged inflamatory or of
%questionable veracity by whoever in the DOD that conducted the final
%review.

You claimed that the DoD altered the NCOI report.
Can't you stick to that lie instead of changing your story?

From Boston's sworn statement:
"...Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that
he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the
White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the
court's findings. ..."

And those two civilians, that did not even tell Kidd what were
their credentials, caused the admiral to role over, play dead,
and sign all the changes.

Do you really believe that?

ojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
execute the office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This is the oath that President Johnson took.

And that's the best you can do?

Johnson violating his oath of office is a tad more
serious than the charge that Captain Boston violated
his oath.

Note is made of no evidence to support the
claim that LBJ issued illegal orders to Kidd, or to McNamara, or to anyone else
involved w/ the Liberty incident.

Johnson was not stupid enough to leave any evidence
behind, unlike the unfortunate American prison guards in Iraq
who photographed themselves torturing Iraqi prisoners.

The part of my post that you deleted showed that Johnson
was willing to violate his oath of office. While my
example was different than the Liberty attack, it
highlighted the fact that Johnson was immoral, unethical,
and, yes, a criminal.

LBJ is alleged to have endangered the crew of the
Liberty and prevented a rescue flight which may have
saved American lives, which is a criminal act.
Therefore, any other evidence of his criminal activity
is relevant.

You failure to even attempt to refute my example could
be interpreted to mean that you agree that LBJ was a
criminal for sending troops to Vietnam without the
authorization of the U.N. Security Council. Or maybe
you agree with a recent attempt to justify the use
of torture in Iraq by a U.S. government memo which said
that a wartime president can do anything he wants;
laws don't apply.

It fits to a tee the prior characteristic of your inability for logical
thought...

You are the one who rejects anything that does not fall
into your predetermined position that the attack on the
Liberty was just an accident. That is your mantra. You do
become irrational sometimes in your 'accident' defense.
And you are certainly fanatical about it. A Google search
using:

"uss liberty"

plus

"uss liberty"

reveals that you have posted thousands of times on Usenet
defending your 'accident' theory of the Liberty attack.

Thanks again for sharing, and enjoy the swinging from the yardarm ...

MW

Your continuing personal attacks demonstrate yet again how
weak your case is. If you had convincing arguments, there
would be no need to engage in insults, name calling, and
the other dishonest tactics which you constantly use.

Anyone can lie the possibilities are endless to why and how. but seeing the
lie is the hard part and that is why you can't see any possibility of him
doing so."in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king"

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

and

http://www.stopfcc.com


"Steve Richter" wrote in message
om...
wrote in message
. com...
(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message
. com...
How it is a lie when the Court's findings were altered
after they were submitted by Kidd to his superiors?

And Kidd never found that out...
And no copies are kept in different places...
And nobody realizes that his testimony was altered...

If Boston knew that the records were altered then is was
is right, and duty, to tell Kidd and the JAG. Telling his
story only after Kidd was dead, is a little strange.

I see no possiblity that Boston is lying and think you defenders of
Israel show your "I'll do anything for Israel" stripes when you accuse
him of doing so. Kidd could easily have been venting when he said
what Boston said he said. And it's probable that testimony was taken
out of the NCOI report because it was judged inflamatory or of
questionable veracity by whoever in the DOD that conducted the final
review.

It's Cristol and other "Israel right or wrong" types who encourage the
attack speculation by denying that the court wanted to go to Israel
and accuse people like Lt Painter of being a liar for saying his
testimony was removed from the NCOI report.

Still would like to know why Cristol did not ask McNamara why the
court was not allowed to go to Israel and if Rabin and Hod were told
of the spy ship Liberty on the morning of 8 June.

-Steve